{"id":285,"date":"2014-01-30T03:00:07","date_gmt":"2014-01-30T08:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/?p=285"},"modified":"2015-11-10T08:22:01","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T14:22:01","slug":"can-lutheran-schools-narrow-the-gap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/2014\/01\/30\/can-lutheran-schools-narrow-the-gap\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Lutheran Schools Narrow the Gap?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Written by John Meyer<\/i><\/p>\n

In an earlier blog article, I wrote about a gap that exists between the culture of WELS schools and that of society (see Is It Too Late for WELS Schools?<\/i><\/a>). <\/i>I propose that one aspect of that gap is the difference between the educational paradigms of 21st<\/sup>-century parents and that of many teachers. A paradigm is a perception of reality based upon one\u2019s experiences and beliefs about a given topic, and it serves as an orienting framework to interpret the world (Kuhn, 1962; Mezirow, 1991).<\/p>\n

Throughout much of the last half of the 20th<\/sup> century, educators and parents held a common educational paradigm about the teacher\u2019s role. I like to call it the equal opportunity <\/i>paradigm. Because this former paradigm was shared, both parties were generally on the same page when communicating. For the past 15-20 years, a competing educational paradigm about the teacher\u2019s role has been held by most parents, society, and an increasing number of teachers. I call this the equal outcomes<\/i> paradigm.<\/p>\n

The Former Paradigm<\/p>\n

Within the equal opportunity <\/i>paradigm, schools and teachers are morally responsible to provide an environment in which each child has an equal opportunity<\/i> to succeed, while recognizing that results will vary by individuals. This paradigm operates under the assumption that the Bell Curve describes any given student population. Two-thirds are found clustered near the average and the remaining are dispersed to the edges as high or low achievers.<\/p>\n

Working within this paradigm, schools enact policies to provide equal opportunities for student success like desegregation, bussing, and equal funding models. The teacher\u2019s role is to provide a learning environment in which every child has the same opportunity to succeed. People operating within this paradigm recognize that student achievement will vary depending upon individual ability and effort. The equal opportunity <\/i>teacher teaches to the middle of the class. Students who excel or fail do so mostly because of extraordinary or below-ordinary ability or effort. Since all students are provided an equal opportunity to succeed, the students, parents, or society shoulder the blame when they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The New Paradigm<\/p>\n

The new educational paradigm is an expectation of equal outcomes.<\/i> Schools are responsible to ensure that each child succeeds regardless of ability or societal factors. When students fail, the school and teacher are to blame. The idea of a Bell Curve to define a student population is morally unacceptable\u2014there should be no lower tail. This paradigm is embodied in policies like No Child Left Behind. <\/i><\/p>\n

Within the equal outcomes <\/i>paradigm, the teacher\u2019s role is to provide a learning environment tailored to each child\u2019s needs. The teacher must know where the student is socially, emotionally, and academically, and provide the necessary support to ensure success regardless of student ability, effort, or family circumstance. Educational literature within this paradigm proclaims that all children can succeed, and it is the teacher\u2019s job to get them there.<\/p>\n

Implications for Lutheran Teachers<\/p>\n

Many teachers in Lutheran schools are uncomfortable with or do not understand the equal outcomes <\/i>paradigm. First, it seems to conflict with the historical Lutheran view that parents have the primary responsibility for their children\u2019s education and that the Lutheran school is only to assist them (Isch, 1992; Kasten, 1992; Kremer, 2013<\/a>). Second, the thought of trying to meet all the varied needs of students is daunting, and not teaching to the middle requires new and unfamiliar teaching approaches (Subban, 2006).<\/p>\n

Whether teachers agree with or understand the paradigm shift, most of today\u2019s parents have made the transition. They interpret what they see and hear at their child\u2019s school from an equal outcomes <\/i>perspective. The result can be a gap between the parents\u2019 and teachers\u2019 understanding of the teacher\u2019s role. What seems logical within one paradigm seems illogical in the other.<\/p>\n

When the teacher and parent paradigms clash, misunderstanding and frustration result for both parties. Such miscommunication may sound like the following:<\/p>\n

Teacher:<\/i> \u00a0\u201cYour child is struggling. This is what you or your child can do to help him achieve.\u201d<\/p>\n

Parent:<\/i> \u201cIt\u2019s your job to teach my child, not mine. You need to provide more for my child.\u201d<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s parents are uncomfortable when they hear teachers use language associated with the equal opportunity<\/i> paradigm because they sense that it doesn\u2019t match their values about schooling. As they exit the Lutheran school, they offer, \u201cWELS schools are great. They just don\u2019t work for my child.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lutheran teachers can narrow the education paradigm gap by moving toward an equal outcome<\/i> paradigm. Helping all students succeed does not usurp the parent\u2019s primary educational role, and new teaching approaches, like differentiation<\/i> and the formative assessment process,<\/i> can help the teacher reach all students. Importantly, understanding the equal outcome <\/i>paradigm helps both parties be on the same page. Improved communication may sound like this.<\/p>\n

Teacher: \u201cYour child is struggling. This is what I will do to help him achieve.\u201d<\/p>\n

Parent: \u201cThank you for your help. You really care about my child.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dr. John Meyer is the director of graduate studies and continuing education at Martin Luther College in New Ulm MN. He served 21 years in WELS elementary schools as a principal and teacher.<\/i><\/p>\n

References<\/b><\/p>\n

Isch, J. (1992, October). Attitudes toward lutheran schools: A 1992 survey. The lutheran educator<\/i>, pp. 18-23.<\/p>\n

Kasten, G. F. (1992, January). \u00a0A changing world, . . . an unchanging challenge: God’s plan for rearing children.<\/i> Manitowoc WI: Joint Metro-North Pastoral Conference and Dodge-Washington Pastoral Conference. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.wlsessays.net\/files\/KastensChildren.rtf<\/p>\n

Kremer, K. (2013, May). Christian education: Whose responsibility is it?<\/i> Retrieved from Issues in lutheran education: http:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/2013\/05\/29\/christian-education-whose-responsibility-is-it\/<\/p>\n

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of revolutions.<\/i> Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning.<\/i> San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.<\/p>\n

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International education journal, 7<\/i>(7), 935-947.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>